What a refreshing change to read an item informed by an INTEGRAL perspective on history and culture.
Especially in comparison to the spiteful one dimensional cliches used by the ever awful Terpstra in his posting today. And to the one dimensional postings of those on the "right" in general.

The author says
"I argue that the ethical responsibility of our "southern" culture is to point out the delicacy of ecology to regional partners whose camparatively fecund environments and economic circumstances do not encourage them to see past the short term to the real effects of such practices as widespread deforestation.
Beyond this, our ethical responsibility is to let be known the real and dire consequences of allowing the workings of society to be oiled by war and the prospect of short-term advantage."
That, after a short ramble through the interface between Chinese and European history, woven into philosophy of Australian environments.
But the "prince of sciences" is neglected; the article is neutered of numbers. Similar to a canoe launched without a paddle, it drifts within undefined horizons.
A stroll through mathematical history would have helped; starting with the Arabs streamlining number processing, and then on through incorporation of zero and infinity - to the western maths which enabled present-day simple arithmetic. Nothing more.
But it remained blinkered to the reality of problems stemming from ever-expanding human numbers; their ever-increasing impact on the environment which supplies basic needs. Whatever flavour our "Johnny appleseed" comes in - planting lantana, prickly pear, alligator weed, distributing trout, carp, cane-toads, while volunteering his gratuitous efforts - the taste is small beer compared with quantity.
Over the last seven generations, human world numbers have doubled twice already, and are well on the way to a third doubling; mathematically, in exponential mode. As is their rate of individual consumption.
Currently world population expands at roughly 1%. Australia, combining a 1.9 fertility rate with net migration, is somewhat similar. And political direction dictates that increase will continue - "the economy depends upon it?!"
At 1% increase, populations double in less than two generations. There are indeed many better-practice actions to be taken in our dealings with, and depletion of, the environment which bankrolls society and its economic system. But it is short-term thinking to neglect the mathematics of exponential increase in the numbers of humans consuming it.

It isn't that long ago that the Productivity Commission examined Australian land management practices and came out with a report that farmers, or their new age equivalent, land managers, had a legal 'duty of care' to their land. It would be great if all state governments who have responsibility to ensure proper land management practices were to take the PC's recommendation on board and enforce it. In the worst cases of environmental vandalism some states like NSW have the power to remove owners, but it isn't exercised. Maybe it should be if the author's call for a new moral and ethical approach to our fragile environment is to be acted upon.

That's a very long-winded way of saying, environmentalism is good, unsustainable raping of the land is bad. We should try to promote environmentalism in regional countries. That's kinda obvious :P I find the stubbornness of industries breathtaking (agricultural, fishing, forestry). Everyone is going to be forced to embrace environmentalism by the very world they are ravaging-and it will be at gunpoint ;), but at least for them will be their children and later generations who will have to bare the costs.

Perhaps Michael Paton is being too polite. As an Anglo Australian, I can say we deserve a kick up the fundament for the appalling way we have destroyed the environment in only 200 years. There is no love or respect for the land, its rivers and streams, from people who have so recently arrived and regard the environment as a thing to be ravaged for the sake of money. Well of course this is a gross generalisation, but we lack visionary and responsible leaders where the environment is concerned. Bob Brown can't live forever unfortunately ...

Hallelujah! Finally, an academic trained in economics and geology who hasn't been gagged by the big end of town - well not yet anyway!

However, I find it interesting that Mr Paton failed to include in his list of enemies to the ecology, the mining and non-agricultural chemical industries which operate carte blanche by self-regulation and without the already available controls to mitigate pollution. And I am not referring specifically to the coal industry which, while a large polluter, contributes only partly to the fossil fuel emissions devastating the environment!

So while we are sorely in need of some competent diplomats for dialogue with other pollutant countries, we require many "Mr Patons" who have the fortitude to lobby our very own federal and state governments who seemingly have their heads stuck down pollutant stacks, calculating and ensuring that profits remain at a premium, whilst feeding us their usual inane sophistry!

When you have a federal government pledging millions of dollars to Chevron for geosequestration of its carbon emissions from the West Australian Gorgon project, which will not be operational for years, then blind Fred realises that it's all spin and con. These taxpayers' dollars should have been distributed amongst the current largest polluters to enact research or to install available pollution control technology, thus resulting in a much earlier reduction of emissions!

But of course one also realises that the "Polluter Pays" policy is a myth and that "moral and ethical responsibility" is not happening in this country!